How come a paradox in set theory that broke the whole thing apart resulted in merely changing the definition of a set to handwave away the issue, but the exact same problem in computer science or mathematical logic is taken seriously?
If we can make "a set cannot contain itself" a thing, why can't we make "a program to solve the halting problem cannot analyze itself" a thing?
Follow

@miria The same applies to Godel's incompleteness theorem. Why would a logical system be incomplete due to its inability to incorporate nonsensical self-referencing paradoxes?

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.